[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication? (Was Re: Global Temperatures to Decrease)
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Apr 19 01:06:20 UTC 2008
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there are four entirely different issues involved in Global
> Warming from a H+ point of view:
> i) does it exist in the first place?
> ii) assuming that i) is true, is it anthropogenic?
### Probably at least to some extent, but almost certainly not only
> iii) assuming that i) is true, and irrespective of whether ii) is true
> or not, is it an entirely negative development?
### No! Global warming is good for you! Seriously, as in, I am not
being sarcastic. It is predicted to increase agricultural productivity
by perhaps as much as 40%, based on the Stanford research on grassland
changes exposed to extra carbon dioxide. Even if parts of polar caps
melted (quite unlikely, since they didn't melt 6000 years ago when the
temperatures were higher than projected by IPCC), this still would not
erase the gains to the economy.
> iv) assuming that i and iii) is true, and irrespective of wheher ii)
> is true or not, should be avoided at any price, or (in other terms)
> what price would be acceptable to avoid or limit it?
### No price is acceptable. You don't pay to prevent something that's
actually good for you.
> Point ii) and iv) are important, because interestingly it appears from
> polls that many people who would be ready to accept important
> sacrifices to limit an anthropogenic global warming would not be
> willing to accept a fraction of them to embark in geo-engineering
> projects aimed at reducing a "natural", albeit equally adverse, global
> This clarifies well enough how poisoned by neoluddite mentality the subject is.
### You bet!
In this vein, it's amazing how low "Scientific American" fell. From a
neat pop-sci magazine, now down to a commie rag, publishing some
English teacher's tirades against economists:
More information about the extropy-chat